How can we highlight template literals as JavaScript? #140
Comments
|
It's not clear to me what you're asking. You might be looking for the |
|
It works like that. Thank you! "custom_templates": {
"default": "scope:source.js"
} |
|
How can I restore the default highlighting for template strings (in I know how to set |
|
You want e.g. templates to be highlighted as HTML by default, but as plain template strings with a lookahead? I'm having trouble envisioning the use case; can you provide an example? If that's what you mean, then I'm not sure there's a clean solution at the moment. You could do it as follows: "custom_templates": {
"default": "scope:text.html.basic",
"lookaheads": {
"foo": "string-content"
}
},But a) you won't get the proper string scope, and b) this is kind of hacky and brittle. If this is a real use case for you, then it might not be too much of a code change to support it. |
|
Yes, but not as I have tried what you suggest, but it is not working. So yes it would be nice to have this. This is how I am trying: "custom_templates": {
"default": "scope:source.js"
, "lookaheads": {
"\\<": "scope:text.html.basic"
, ".": "string-content"
}
}I would like to restore the default highlighting for these type of dynamic imports for example: |
|
Rather than This seems to work for me, with the caveat that (as mentioned above) e.g. Alternatively, what about: "custom_templates": {
"lookaheads": {
"\\<": "scope:text.html.basic",
"import": "scope:source.js",
},
}, |
|
The alternative is not working. |
|
Seems like the solution is to not define the "custom_templates": {
"lookaheads": {
"\\<|.\\>": "scope:text.html.basic"
, "var": "scope:source.js"
}
} |
|
Yeah, that's what I meant. Sorry it wasn't clear. Does that work for your use case? If not I can create a feature ticket. |
|
Yes, it works like this for me. Thank you! |
|
Similarly to template strings can I set (custom) highlighting (using lookaheads) for regular strings? |
|
That is not currently a feature. Given that you can use template strings anywhere, I suspect that custom embedding for single/double-quoted strings would not be useful enough to justify the complexity. In addition, there might be substantial performance implications. What is your use case for this? |
|
Yes, it would be just nice to have. I have some single line html strings and |
|
I am implementing JavaScript Extensible Markup Language usage for some parts that are currently modules and will become (SolidJS) components in the Refo static site example. So for example the following line: will look like this: {template(`<!DOCTYPE HTML>`)}and unfortunately this line too for example: {template(`<head>`)} |
To highlight as
HTMLit works like this:To highlight as
JavaScriptI tried the following for example:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: